Personalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes.

A multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention.

The trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public.

ISRCTN68786622.

2.0 (16 May 2023).

To explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

Qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.

Five professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter).

Professionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake ‘self-driven’ referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials.

Diversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. Vaccination can improve outcomes, but vaccine hesitancy remains a major challenge. We examined factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with T2D in two sub-Saharan Africa countries that adopted different national approaches to combat COVID-19, Kenya and Tanzania.

A mixed-methods study was conducted in February-March 2022, involving a survey of 1000 adults with T2D (500 Kenya; 500 Tanzania) and 51 in-depth interviews (21 Kenya; 30 Tanzania). Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model, while thematic content analysis explored barriers and facilitators.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake was lower in Tanzania (26%) than in Kenya (75%), which may reflect an initial political hesitancy about vaccines in Tanzania. People with college/university education were four times more likely to be vaccinated than those with no education (Kenya AOR=4.25 (95% CI 1.00 to 18.03), Tanzania AOR=4.07 (1.03 to 16.12)); and people with health insurance were almost twice as likely to be vaccinated than those without health insurance (Kenya AOR=1.70 (1.07 to 2.70), Tanzania AOR=1.81 (1.04 to 3.13)). Vaccine uptake was higher in older people in Kenya, and among those with more comorbidities and higher socioeconomic status in Tanzania. Interviewees reported that wanting protection from severe illness promoted vaccine uptake, while conflicting information, misinformation and fear of side-effects limited uptake.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with T2D was suboptimal, particularly in Tanzania, where initial political hesitancy had a negative impact. Policy-makers must develop strategies to reduce fear and misconceptions, especially among those who are less educated, uninsured and younger.

To examine time trends in patient characteristics, care processes and case fatality of first emergency admission for alcohol-related liver disease (ARLD) in England.

National population-based, retrospective observational cohort study.

Clinical Practice Research Datalink population of England, 2008/2009 to 2017/2018. First emergency admissions were identified using the Liverpool ARLD algorithm. We applied survival analyses and binary logistic regression to study prognostic trends.

Patient characteristics; ‘recent’ General Practitioner (GP) consultations and hospital admissions (preceding year); higher level care; deaths in-hospital (including certified cause) and within 365 days. Covariates were age, sex, deprivation status, coding pattern, ARLD stage, non-liver comorbidity, coding for ascites and varices.

17 575 first admissions (mean age: 53 years; 33% women; 32% from most deprived quintile). Almost half had codes suggesting advanced liver disease. In year before admission, only 47% of GP consulters had alcohol-related problems recorded; alcohol-specific diagnostic codes were absent in 24% of recent admission records. Overall, case fatality rate was 15% in-hospital and 34% at 1 year. Case-mix-adjusted odds of in-hospital death reduced by 6% per year (adjusted OR (aOR): 0.94; 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.96) and 4% per year at 365 days (aOR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.97). Exploratory analyses suggested the possibility of regional inequalities in outcome.

Despite improving prognosis of first admissions, we found missed opportunities for earlier recognition and intervention in primary and secondary care. In 2017/2018, one in seven were still dying during index admission, rising to one-third within a year. Nationwide efforts are needed to promote earlier detection and intervention, and to minimise avoidable mortality after first emergency presentation. Regional variation requires further investigation.